Indonesia Playing Politics With Tsunami Relief

[russ_watters]

This is disgusting.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-01-12-tsunami-indonesia-marines_x.htm

 

[Gonzolo]

I don't see what you find disgusting. Indonesia refusing US military help?

 

[Locrian]

I can understand why they made at least some of those choices. Are they disgusting for not allowing our military to conduct training excersizes in their airspace when they undoubtedly need our help? Are we disgusting for insisting on performing military training excersizes in someone elses airspace whom we are supposedly helping?

I wish a better compromise could have been made. Still, I don't accept this tactic on their part as "disgusting," because if our national security was faced with the same question, I think we would make the same decision.

 

[scarecrow]

Indonesia is right in the decision it made. Who knows what other agenda the U.S. may have...any country would do the same thing (especially the U.S.) in time of war and the fact that Indonesia is the largest islamic country.

 

[PerennialII]

Whether anyone would do anything similar doesn't make it any less disgusting. Them restricting aid to a "rebellious" part of their country makes wonder whether they are using the Tsunami to solve their internal problems, adding a new dimension to how disgusting this is. One would think that the US marines get enough training as it is, and can't really see why the US would be even remotely interested about the Aceh region.

 

[Locrian]

Whether anyone would do anything similar doesn't make it any less disgusting.

No, but what we are implying is that we would do the same thing because, although it is a hard choice to make, it may be the right thing to do. It is also true that it may not be the right thing to do. However, anyone who would do the same should think twice before passing a guilty judgement.

If Russ would let those providing aid to the US (in a hypothetical situation) do military training in US airspace, then he's justified in being critical. Personally, I would consider our national security too important; we could find other ways of receiving aid. Foreign planes in our airspace can be a significant breach of security. Therefore I'm a bit hesitant to throw any stones, personally.

Them restricting aid to a "rebellious" part of their country makes wonder whether they are using the Tsunami to solve their internal problems, adding a new dimension to how disgusting this is.

This would also impact whether their decision was the right one, and is a good point. I wonder how much information we do not have?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see what you find disgusting. Indonesia refusing US military help?

Yes - allowing your own people to die because you have a political bone to pick with those giving the aid and the opportunity to use that aid itself as a tactic in fighting an internal conflict is disgusting.

I can understand why they made at least some of those choices. Are they disgusting for not allowing our military to conduct training excersizes in their airspace when they undoubtedly need our help? Are we disgusting for insisting on performing military training excersizes in someone elses airspace whom we are supposedly helping?

This may require clarification: it mentioned in the article that flight status requires no more than 14 days between training flights. That means taking off, flying around for a very short time, and landing (the landing is the most important part of the qualification and several are required). Since the carrier was less than 13 miles off the coast, it was in Indonesian airspace and the planes weren't even allowed to do this. We're not even talking flying over Indonesia itself, conducting combat training, etc. Just landing qualifications. There is absolutely no reason no to allow this.

Indonesia is right in the decision it made. Who knows what other agenda the U.S. may have...any country would do the same thing (especially the U.S.) in time of war and the fact that Indonesia is the largest islamic country.

Can you name a time ever in history where the US has used such a natural disaster relief effort as a pretext for war? Its simply not an issue.

Them restricting aid to a "rebellious" part of their country makes wonder whether they are using the Tsunami to solve their internal problems, adding a new dimension to how disgusting this is.

Yes! This isn't even just about the US - they are using the humanitarian effort itself in their internal politics. Its nice that they are observing a cease-fire during the aid effort, but to not allow aid to areas where rebels are - thats...well, disgusting!

No, but what we are implying is that we would do the same thing because, although it is a hard choice to make, it may be the right thing to do.

WHY? Why is it right to let civilians die because you don't like who is giving the aid or because there happen to be rebels nearby? Not even Hussein did that (much). He allowed humanitarian aid into the country. This is more along the lines of what the warlords did in Somalia, or perhaps, the Kursk incident (though in Russia's defense, that was a military accident).

If Russ would let those providing aid to the US (in a hypothetical situation) do military training in US airspace, then he's justified in being critical.

See above "military training" is not combat training and I absolutely would allow that in an aid situation or otherwise (and we do it all the time). The only reason not to allow it would be if you consider the training flights a threat, which they have no basis for.

 

[russ_watters]

Please, guys, if you didn't read the whole article, please do. There are many, many points in it:

-Not allowing flight qualifications for US Navy pilots offshore.
-Not allowing military to carry weapons - particularly heinous considering security is a problem already.
-Not allowing aid to areas where rebels are.
-Requiring aid workers and journalists to have specific travel plans or face expulsion
-Not allowing on-site bases of operation or temporary camps for military aid workers (you can help us, but you have to leave every night). Now instead of ferrying aid from ships, most of the effort is in ferrying aid workers to and from land on a daily basis.
-Possibly using these restrictions to cover-up corruption and human rights abuses by the Indonesian government/military.
-Trying to use the disaster as a pretext for lifting an embargo on arms sales to Indonesia.

Not even IRAN, our supposed bitter enemy, acted this way following the earthquake there last year (though admittedly, the scope was smaller). We try to help, they slap us in the face: why should we help them now?

 

[Locrian]

WHY?

Well, WHY didn't my explanation make sense, and WHY didn't you quote both statements that I made - that it may be right and that it may be wrong? Since I explained WHY it might be necessary to do that, it would help me explain myself further if I knew WHY you disregarded that explanation.

It seems reasonable to start where I left off, instead of where I began.

 

[russ_watters]

Locrian, your justification seemed to be that we would (or might) make the same choices. That's an excuse, not a justification. I'm sure you tried it with your mother when you were little (Mom: why did you do it? You: well, everyone else is!). A justification looks at the act individally and makes an argument regarding the actual merits of the act. You referenced one specific point (the pilot training thing) which appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the issue and based on that an incorrect prediction of my position on the question.

So that's why I ask: why are these actions "the right thing to do?"

 

[tumor]

Please, guys, if you didn't read the whole article, please do. There are many, many points in it:

-Not allowing flight qualifications for US Navy pilots offshore.
-Not allowing military to carry weapons - particularly heinous considering security is a problem already.
-Not allowing aid to areas where rebels are.
-Requiring aid workers and journalists to have specific travel plans or face expulsion
-Not allowing on-site bases of operation or temporary camps for military aid workers (you can help us, but you have to leave every night). Now instead of ferrying aid from ships, most of the effort is in ferrying aid workers to and from land on a daily basis.
-Possibly using these restrictions to cover-up corruption and human rights abuses by the Indonesian government/military.
-Trying to use the disaster as a pretext for lifting an embargo on arms sales to Indonesia.

Not even IRAN, our supposed bitter enemy, acted this way following the earthquake there last year (though admittedly, the scope was smaller). We try to help, they slap us in the face: why should we help them now?

And where did you read all that my friend ? Oh yeah.. in good old "USA Today" magazine ? Gotch you sucker.

 

[Gokul43201]

And where did you read all that my friend ? Oh yeah.. in good old "USA Today" magazine ? Gotch you sucker.

Yes, I'm sure USA Today made that all up...'cause it was a slow news day.

Clearly these actions make Indonesia look bad...in fact, I'd say they come off as quite pathetic. Whether there was reason for these actions is not known - it may have been something the US military did - but I can't understand what trump Indonesia thinks they hold, that they can negotiate arms deals with the US. Being the ones in need of help, they are at a disadvantage as far as negotiations are concerned. What gives them this power to negotiate ?

 

[Dissident Dan]

From what I read in the article, I would have to agree with Russ, but it's such a cursory overview that it is easy to get the wrong impression.

 

[plover]

Them restricting aid to a "rebellious" part of their country makes wonder whether they are using the Tsunami to solve their internal problems, adding a new dimension to how disgusting this is.

Yes! This isn't even just about the US - they are using the humanitarian effort itself in their internal politics. Its nice that they are observing a cease-fire during the aid effort, but to not allow aid to areas where rebels are - thats...well, disgusting!

Unfortunately, the TNI (the Indonesian military) http://www.thejakartapost.com/Archives/ArchivesDet2.asp?FileID=20041231.A02 ). There hasn't been fighting in the coastal areas that were actually damaged by the tsunami, but apparently substantial forces continued sweeping villages inland instead of assisting in relief work. To all appearances, the Indonesian government has gone about the relief effort in a weaselly and opportunistic fashion that's just, er, disgusting.

On the other hand, it is also true that some TNI units involved in the relief have ignored some of the restrictions and red tape demanded by Jakarta and allowed aid workers to get things done.

More on Indonesian requests for military supplies, along with an interview with Colin Powell.

And here's the Human Rights Watch letter to Indonesia's president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, concerning the relief efforts.

 

[Gonzolo]

Please, guys, if you didn't read the whole article, please do. There are many, many points in it:

-Not allowing flight qualifications for US Navy pilots offshore.
...

I read the article the first time. That point about Navy pilots is funny at best.

 

[tumor]

Once you let them in, then later is very hard to throw them out,i'm talking about US army.

 

[Locrian]

Locrian, your justification seemed to be that we would (or might) make the same choices.

That isn't true. I suggested we might make the same choice and then gave a reason we might do that. The justification lies in the logic and facts behind the circumstances. I'm sure you tried arguing with your mother when you were little by only addressing half her arguments or by belittling her. Did it work then?

 

[Locrian]

On another note, my father just got called by the navy with a request to help Indonesia from a military vessel (he is not in the service, but was in the past). Maybe the news this thread is based off of will make his work more interesting?

I have to admit I'm rather envious of him. I'm not sure how free he'll be able to be with the information (I can't think of any reason he couldn't be, but then I don't know much about the situation), but if I hear any information we haven't all heard before that's worth recounting, I will post it.

 

[russ_watters]

Locrian, your justification [for not considering this disgusting]
seemed to be that we would (or might) make the same choices. [emphasis added]

That isn't true. I suggested we might make the same choice and then gave a reason we might do that. [emphasis added]

Huh? You said it wasn't true then you said virtually the same thing with virtually the same words! If I'm missing something, I truly apologize, but I don't think I am.

 

[tumor]

I have to admit I'm rather envious of him. I'm not sure how free he'll be able to be with the information (I can't think of any reason he couldn't be, but then I don't know much about the situation), but if I hear any information we haven't all heard before that's worth recounting, I will post it.

I know what you old man will say, simply: Indonesian moslems bad and evil, americans the best people in the world.

 

[russ_watters]

I know what you old man will say, simply: Indonesian moslems bad and evil, americans the best people in the world.

What??!? Are you on something? If not, you have no concept whatsoever of what is going on in this situation or in the minds of Americans.

Your attitude is what I fear most in this world: blind hatred.

You do know how many Americans are personally giving aid to Indonesia, right? Upwards of 100 million. These are people aren't doing it for the sake of appearances (there is no way you could ever learn their names). They are doing it becase they care. Your attitude in the face of such caring and generosity is sickening and pathetic. Grow up.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-01-05-voa6.cfm

Ms. Rhodes adds that CARE has seen what she describes as an "overwhelming" display of generosity from ordinary people.

"What we have seen is an unbelievable amount of outpouring of people wanting to do something," she said. "Our headquarters is in Atlanta, and people are literally walking off the street, into the CARE headquarters, handing checks and cash, and saying here's something for the emergency. So, it's just been phenomenal that people have been - whether it's five dollars or a hundred dollars or a thousand dollars, people are responding to this."

 

[JasonRox]

What??!? Are you on something? If not, you have no concept whatsoever of what is going on in this situation or in the minds of Americans.

Your attitude is what I fear most in this world: blind hatred.

You do know how many Americans are personally giving aid to Indonesia, right? Upwards of 100 million. These are people who'se names you aren't doing it for the sake of appearances (there is no way you could ever learn their names). They are doing it becase they care. Your attitude in the face of such caring and generosity is sickening and pathetic.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-01-05-voa6.cfm

Americans have a bad image... its obvious why.

World Bank ****ed everyone over.
WTO ****ed everyone over.
Bush trying to **** everyone over.

Lots of things...

There was a survey (not sure where... some newspaper, which I believe was USA Today) where over 50% of Americans voted that they should reduce the amount of freedom given to Muslim/Islams in the United States of America.

Hmm... that really shows how much you care.

 

[JasonRox]

What??!? Are you on something? If not, you have no concept whatsoever of what is going on in this situation or in the minds of Americans.

Your attitude is what I fear most in this world: blind hatred.

You do know how many Americans are personally giving aid to Indonesia, right? Upwards of 100 million. These are people aren't doing it for the sake of appearances (there is no way you could ever learn their names). They are doing it becase they care. Your attitude in the face of such caring and generosity is sickening and pathetic.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-01-05-voa6.cfm

Oh... on a another note. Please don't act like the US is the only country with people with such generosity.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh... on a another note. Please don't act like the US is the only country with people with such generosity.

I said no such thing.

 

[JasonRox]

I said no such thing.

I said "act".

You seem to be giving the impression the US is the greatest of all countries to help. Indonesia is willing to accept other countries, but not the US.

What's the big deal? They are going to get the help they need regardless of what the US does. Personnally, I don't view the US as the best possible help.

Why not send your troops elsewhere? Other countries are more than willing to take more troops.

Keep words of "wisdom".

Stop whining.

Note: Does President Bush know what a Tsunami is or did he not have time to look it up in the dictionnary yet because he's on vacation with the oil money he's making by robbing the American's blind?

I pity the one under the control of Bush.

 

[JasonRox]

One more note.

I'm not trying to be a prick here. I know you're a nice guy, but I'm just posting the views of those outside of the US and my own.

Not wanting to make a Hate American/World Thread.

 

[Locrian]

Huh? You said it wasn't true then you said virtually the same thing with virtually the same words! If I'm missing something, I truly apologize, but I don't think I am.

I don't know about missing so much as not understanding, which i deserve blame for. You are right, whether we would do the same thing is irrelevant. That isn't all I wrote though; I also gave reasons we wouldn't do the same thing. I just couldn't understand why you didn't focus on those instead. I didn't make a huge argument, I just tossed out what I thought. Obviously it created confusion, and I promise you, I'll remember what a few extraneous words can do.

If I said "Personally, I wouldn't rape and then murder someone because I think it violates their fundamental rights," would you be correct in saying that I was not making an argument, because whether I would do the same or not is not at issue? I said if I were them I'd have second thoughts about tossing up my national security without looking for alternatives. Yea, "If I were them" is extraneous and I should have left it out, but I didn't see the harm, at the time.

So let me try to clear my original point up.

How many lives has this cost indonesian people?

"Very little is being degraded. We're doing just as many missions as before," Daniels said.

On the other hand, the marines seem to have scaled back. Well, they seem to, the article doesn't say much about the "compromise" that was reached, though they make it sound like the marines were going back after that. But maybe less? I hate journalists.

So there are some questions I would want answered before I made a moral judgement here:

1) Are these national security issues, or just playing politics? Doesn't a country still have the right to govern their airspace, even if they are in need of help? Is it necessary to trade your national security for aid, or is there a smarter way? What reasons does indonesia have, exactly, for fearing a breach of national security?

2) How many people are going to die or suffer because the US (edit: military) is not there? Will others step up? How much has the US (edit: military) actually reduced aid? I really don't feel the article was very specific about that last question. I don't know the answer to the second, and the answer to the first depends on those.

3) Does the US military have any alterior motives I do not know about? I would think not, and I'm not one for conspiracy theories. But then, our history is riddled with rediculous affairs into other nations politics that were neither logical or moral. In fact, I can think of a few that were brazenly immoral, illegal and illogical. So what don't I know about this? Could Indonesia know something I don't? I hate the things those last two questions imply, but given our history, I'd feel foolish if I didn't ask them.

If that doesn't clear up my stance, I don't know what would. If you think my stance on this isn't firm, well yea, that's my whole point; we are lacking a huge amont of information, at least partly because the article stunk. I guess when you posted it, I should have rushed out and researched all the incredibly vague statements it made, but I just didn't have time. So I posted a wishy-washy response to a wishy-washy set of information. I apoligize for the confusion and will respond more carefully next time.

 

[PerennialII]

good grief ... as a view coming from the other side of the pool, most around here are extremely pleased with the actions of the US in helping those areas most in need of aid, and which can't really be aided by anyone than the US (I don't see anyone elses aircraft carriers parked there which could use helos to supply aid & carry out 'SAR' tasks). National security is not the upmost criterion for action, nor when a disaster hits should we start holding conferences on what is the proper and politically correct way to respond, but just do it. Hints of conspiracy theories ought to be reserved for the cases that deserve them. :yuck:

 

[plover]

So there are some questions I would want answered before I made a moral judgement here:

1) Are these national security issues, or just playing politics? Doesn't a country still have the right to govern their airspace, even if they are in need of help? Is it necessary to trade your national security for aid, or is there a smarter way? What reasons does indonesia have, exactly, for fearing a breach of national security?

There has been an ongoing conflict in Aceh between the Indonesian government and Acehnese separatists for at least 25 years. The Indonesian military has been fairly brutal toward civilians and the government has kept Aceh mostly closed to foreigners. Having hundreds of aid workers in a position to see what has been going on in Aceh is probably not Jakarta's favorite idea. Journalists have been told by Indonesian military commanders not to report on clashes of the TNI (the Indonesian army) or the Kopassus (special forces) with the GAM (the Acehnese guerillas).

Both Jakarta and GAM declared agreement to a cease-fire at the time of the tsunami, but from everything I've heard, the TNI did not keep to this cease-fire in the inland parts of Aceh, only in the coastal areas affected by the disaster. TNI commanders were clear that they had received no orders to cease their operations. At this point, despite the insistence by GAM commanders—who are based in Sweden!—that they want to maintain a cease-fire, there is a lot of renewed tension. The government claims that they want GAM to disarm before they can commit to ceasing operations which seems like fairly blatant opportunism.

From the Guardian article:

Yesterday the mother of one of the men killed by the army denied her son was a militant and said she didn't know why he had been shot. "We don't know what happened. He had gone to find some broken motorbikes on the beach," Mariani Basri told the Guardian, from her home in the nearby village of Lamlhom. Asked whether she blamed the Indonesian army, she replied: "There's no point in protesting. It was the destiny of God."

Her son, Andriansyah, was 19 and was still at high school, she said. "We have to like the Indonesian army because we are Indonesian. We have to like Gam because we are from Aceh. We are in the middle and we get squashed," she added.

It's hard to tell from this report whether this woman just feels divided loyalties, or is mostly afraid to publicly denounce the TNI (or perhaps to denounce either side).

Jakarta keeps protesting that they are restricting access because they can't ensure the safety of aid workers, but as far as I can tell, any danger to aid workers is mostly due to renewed conflict resulting from the bad faith on the part of the Indonesian government. Plus, there has never been an indication that aid workers are in any way a target of GAM forces.

2) How many people are going to die or suffer because the US (edit: military) is not there? Will others step up? How much has the US (edit: military) actually reduced aid? I really don't feel the article was very specific about that last question. I don't know the answer to the second, and the answer to the first depends on those.

When they first arrived at least, perhaps the most important thing the U.S. carrier group brought with it was the capacity to supply vast amounts of fresh water. This presumably kept many people alive and has significantly reduced some of the risks from disease. I have no idea if/how the U.S. has been materially hampered in delivering this water.

3) Does the US military have any alterior motives I do not know about? I would think not, and I'm not one for conspiracy theories. But then, our history is riddled with rediculous affairs into other nations politics that were neither logical or moral. In fact, I can think of a few that were brazenly immoral, illegal and illogical. So what don't I know about this? Could Indonesia know something I don't? I hate the things those last two questions imply, but given our history, I'd feel foolish if I didn't ask them.

Always good questions to ask, and maybe Indonesia does have some legitimate security concerns. (I have no comment on any of these points regarding training missions and the positioning of ships.) However, there is also a lot of evidence that Jakarta is acting dodgy and has motives other than assuring that relief workers can accomplish their task unhindered.

edit: While skepticism of U.S. intentions is frequently more than warranted, this strikes me as one of the least likely situations for an operation to be guided by pernicious motives (especially after Bush's brittle aloofness in the first days after the catastrophe—trailing a wing as cover doesn't strike me as a Bush tactic). If the U.S. has committed any real faux pas while conducting this operation, I expect they are the result of arrogance rather than deviousness. Also, I haven't seen any complaints about the U.S. involvement from Indonesian or Acehnese activists who would presumably have the keenest noses for anything that might be awry.

However, there is one fairly evident ulterior motive: improving the standing of the U.S. among Muslims—hardly an objectionable accompaniment though when accomplishing something of real and obvious benefit.

Sometimes a carrier group is just a carrier group.

 

[Gokul43201]

You seem to be giving the impression the US is the greatest of all countries to help. Indonesia is willing to accept other countries, but not the US.

What's the big deal? They are going to get the help they need regardless of what the US does. Personnally, I don't view the US as the best possible help.

Why not send your troops elsewhere? Other countries are more than willing to take more troops.

Here's the complete list of US Navy vessels taking part in the Disaster/Humanitarian Relief effort :

Carriers:
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Andaman Sea

Cruisers:
USS Shiloh (CG 67) - Andaman Sea
USS Bunker Hill (CG 52) - Indian Ocean

Destroyers:
USS Benfold (DDG 65) - Andaman Sea
USS Milius (DDG 69) - Indian Ocean
USS Shoup (DDG 86) - Andaman Sea

Frigates:
USS Thach (FFG 43) - Andaman Sea

15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) (SOC)
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - Indian Ocean
USS Duluth (LPD 6) - Indian Ocean
USS Rushmore (LSD 47) - Indian Ocean

Amphibious Ships:
USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) - Andaman Sea

Other Vessels:
Westpac Express (HSV) - Gulf of Thailand
USNS Concord (T-AFS 5) - Indian Ocean
USNS Rainier (T-AOE 7) - Andaman Sea
USNS John McDonnell (T-AGS 51) - South China Sea
USNS Watson (T-AKR 310) - Indian Ocean
M/V Cpl. Louis J. Hauge (TAK 3000) - South China Sea
M/V Pfc. James Anderson (TAK 3002) - South China Sea
M/V 1st Lt. Alex Bonnyman (TAK 3003) -Indian Ocean
M/V Maj. Steven W. Pless (TAK 3007) - Andaman Sea
M/V 1st Lt. Jack Lummus (TAK 3011) - Indian Ocean
USNS 1st Lt. Harry L. Martin (TAK 3015) - South China Sea


Please provide a comparable list of vessels that other countries will spare if the US pulls out, and I'll write a strongly worded letter to the CNO urging him to pull out.

 

[russ_watters]

Nice post, Gokul. That puts the importance of America's involvement in perspective.

 

[russ_watters]

So I posted a wishy-washy response to a wishy-washy set of information. I apoligize for the confusion and will respond more carefully next time.

Fair enough.

 

[russ_watters]

Also:

Americans have a bad image... its obvious why.

World Bank ****ed everyone over.
WTO ****ed everyone over. [emphasis added]

Neither of those are American institutions.

Bush trying to **** everyone over.

Bush is one American, albeit the most powerful: but you still can't extend his views to all Americans.

 

[JasonRox]

Also: Neither of those are American institutions. Bush is one American, albeit the most powerful: but you still can't extend his views to all Americans.

Why vote for someone who doesn't support your views?

Hmm... that's 51% of Americans. If you didn't vote, that implies you share all views.

As for Gokul, tons of vessels with poorly trained marines can't do much.

 

[Townsend]

If you didn't vote, that implies you share all views.

Whatever you are somking I need some of that stuff cause you must be high as a kite to make such an obtuse statement.

Oh by the way, next time you are going to say something that lamebrained please give me a warning. I spit OJ all over my laptop from laughing so hard when I read that.